Susie v. Tommy

Susie will sue Tommy under the theory of negligence. To recover Susie must prove that Tommy owed her a duty of care, tommy breached the duty, his breach was the actual and proximate cause of her injury and that she suffered actual damages.
Special Duty- Violation of Statute-Negligence Per Se
A special duty of due care can be established by a violation of a statute that bans running a red light. This is known as negligence per se. The issue is whether the “a statute in this jurisdiction makes it a misdemeanor to run a red light” created a duty. The statute (intent of the legislature) establishes the duty if plaintiff can prove two requirements. Fist, the plaintiff must be within the class of persons the statute was intended to protect and second, the injury must be of the kind that the statute was intended to prevent. Negligence per se establishes both duty and breach.
Susie must show that she was within the class of persons the statute was intended to protect. The legislature probably intended to protect all pedestrians crossing the street in a crosswalk. This would include victims like Susie who was struck by a car while crossing the street in the crosswalk. Tommy may argue that he did not see the red light however traffic lights do not go from green to red because the yellow signal gives notice to the light changing. The statue was designed to protect pedestrians from getting struck by cars and providing them a safe way to cross the street.
The second requirement, the legislature likely intended the law to prevent injuries caused by cars while pedestrians are crossing the crosswalk. It is likely that the legislature wanted to provide a safe matter for the pedestrians like Susie not to be struck by a fast moving car like Tommie’s that can cause injury. Since Susie was a victim who was struck by a car running a red light she will prove this